Duration of Four Statutorily Created Veterans Administration Advisory Committees ( 1979 )


Menu:
  •                                                               April 13, 1979
    79-25     MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE
    ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
    Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.
    § 1 et seq .)—Duration o f Veterans Administration
    Advisory Committees
    The A ttorney General has asked this Office to reply to your letter to him
    o f January 10, 1979, concerning the duration under the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act (FACA), 5 U .S.C . A pp. § 1 et seq. (1976), o f four
    statutorily created Veterans Adm inistration (VA) advisory committees.
    We conclude that the duration o f advisory committees may be determined
    by implication from the particular statute involved, and thus be “ other­
    wise provided for by law ,” within the meaning o f the FACA. This would
    permit such committees to survive the FA CA ’s 2-year cutoff provisions, 5
    U .S.C . App. § 14(a)(1)(B) and (2)(B), notwithstanding the absence o f any
    statute providing expressly for their term ination. Under the above stand­
    ards, Congress has so provided by law for the continuing duration o f two
    VA advisory committees and for the extended duration o f two other VA
    advisory committees for limited purposes only.
    I. Background
    The VA is currently served by four statutorily created advisory commit­
    tees: the Advisory Com mittee on Cemeteries and Memorials (Cemeteries
    Committee), 38 U .S.C . § 1001 (1976); the Advisory Committee on Struc­
    tural Safety o f Veterans Adm inistration Facilities (Structural Safety Com ­
    mittee), 38 U .S.C . § 5001 (1976); the Special Medical Advisory G roup
    (SMAG), 38 U .S.C . § 4112(a) (1976); and an advisory committee on voca­
    tional rehabilitation and educational assistance (Education Committee),
    38 U .S.C . § 1792 (1976). The first two were created in 1973, subsequent to
    the 1972 enactm ent o f FACA; SMAG was created in 1946; the Education
    Committee was first established in 1952.
    None o f the acts establishing these committees specifies whether the
    committee it creates shall exist for a certain term or indefinitely.
    170
    Under § 14(a),
    (a)(1) Each advisory committee which is in existence on the ef­
    fective date o f this Act shall terminate not later than the expira­
    tion o f the two-year period following such effective date unless—
    * * *
    (B)      in the case o f an advisory committee established by an
    Act o f Congress, its duration is otherwise provided for by law.
    (2)    Each advisory committee established after such effective
    date shall term inate not later than the expiration o f the two-year
    period beginning on the date o f its establishment unless—
    *    * *
    (B)       in the case o f an advisory committee established by an
    Act o f Congress, its duration is otherwise provided for by law.
    As you suggest, because the statutes that created the four VA committees
    do not specify their terms o f existence, they are governed by the autom atic
    cutoff provisions quoted above unless their duration is, by implication,
    “ otherwise provided for by law.”
    Since the enactment o f the FACA, this Office has been frequently called
    upon by executive agencies to construe § 14(a) as applied to particular ad­
    visory committees. Because the offices responsible for promulgating
    guidelines for the management o f Federal advisory committees' have
    themselves issued no interpretation o f the phrase “ duration * * * other­
    wise provided for by law,” we have consistently applied an interpretation
    o f the FACA that we reached in 1973 (in consultation with the Office of
    Management and Budget) based on the manifest intent and legislative
    history o f the FACA.
    In our view, the duration o f a statutorily created advisory committee
    may be “ otherwise provided for by law” either expressly or by implica­
    tion. Such duration is provided for by implication if the statute that
    creates or assigns functions to an advisory committee provides for it a
    specific function that is continuing in nature and is an integral part o f the
    implementation o f a statutory scheme. The statutory assignment to a com ­
    mittee o f some regular and well-defined participation in an agency’s ad­
    ministrative process would be sufficient to overcome the rebuttable pre­
    sumption that, unless the statute that creates a committee deals expressly
    with term ination, the committee is to terminate automatically in 2 years.
    Such an assignment must be more specific than the rendering o f general
    1 The FACA established a Committee Management Secretariat under the Director o f the
    Office o f M anagement and Budget, 5 U .S.C . A pp. § 7(a). A 1977 Executive order transferred
    to the Adm inistrator o f General Services (GSA) certain functions under the FA CA, including
    the m aintenance o f the Secretariat. Exec. O rder No. 12024, 3 CFR 158 (1978).
    171
    advice to an agency with regard to some program area, which is the
    general function o f most advisory committees.
    The interpretation just described, centering on a rebuttable presumption
    o f committee term ination, is compelled as a necessary middle ground be­
    tween narrower and more lenient interpretations, both o f which would fail
    to give effect to Congress’ intent in enacting the FACA.
    U nder a more lenient interpretation, the duration o f a committee would
    be deemed to be otherwise provided for by law if the committee is assigned
    by statute any specific ongoing function. The interpretation would effec­
    tively nullify the autom atic term ination provisions and undermine the
    clear purpose o f § 14(a), because the general task o f all advisory com ­
    mittees to give advice could itself be characterized as a specific ongoing
    function.
    U nder a narrower interpretation, a com m ittee’s duration would be pro­
    vided for only if its terms o f existence were expressly specified in an Act of
    Congress. We reject this approach for three reasons. First, it would sweep
    more broadly than Congress’ expressed intent o f getting rid o f “ inactive,
    meaningless, obsolete and redundant advisory com m ittees,” S. Rept.
    1098, 92d Cong. 20 (1972), by imposing a rule under which the functions
    assigned by Congress to an advisory committee would be irrelevant in
    determining Congress’ intent with respect to the duration o f the advisory
    body. Such an approach would be especially troublesome with respect to
    statutory committees created prior to the enactment o f the FACA. Prior
    to the FACA, Congress, not anticipating any need to specify expressly the
    term o f an advisory com m ittee’s existence, would likely have expressed its
    intent concerning the duration o f any committee only by implication, if at
    all, through the functions and structure established for the committee.
    Second, the narrower rule would create irrationally different regimes for
    the perpetuation o f statutory and nonstatutory com m ittees.2 Finally, it
    would give no effect to the unexplained substitution o f the word “ dura­
    tion” for “ term ination” in the conference version o f § 14(a); in speaking
    o f “ duration otherwise provided by law ,” instead o f “ termination other­
    wise provided for by law,” Congress may have intended to establish a
    m ore flexible approach to determining the longevity o f advisory commit­
    tees [emphasis added].
    Because the legislative history o f the FACA indicates that uniformity o f
    treatment for Federal advisory committees is a “ m ajor objective,” S.
    Rept. 1098, id., 8-9, we believe that the presumption o f autom atic ter­
    mination can be rebutted, if at all, by specific statutory language, and not
    by references to legislative history or administrative practice. Otherwise,
    our suggested test would be highly uncertain in its application.
    1 N onstatutory comm ittees may simply be renewed, prior to expiration, by action o f the
    President or o f the G overnm ent officer who established the committee. 5 U .S.C . App.
    § 14(a).
    172
    Although our approach, in sum, is partly functional, we do not believe
    that Congress intended the importance an agency or departm ent attaches
    to a particular committee to be sufficient in itself to establish the com ­
    m ittee’s continuing duration as a statutory committee. By creating a test
    o f termination that relies on statutory language, Congress has created a
    system whereby certain statutory committees may well terminate despite
    their demonstrable usefulness to the agencies they advise. Congress has
    nonetheless reserved to itself the option o f perpetuating im portant com ­
    mittees by statute beyond 2 years, leaving the option to each agency head
    o f establishing, after consultation with GSA and the furnishing o f public
    notice, a statutorily created committee as a nonstatutory body. 5 U.S.C.
    App. § 9(a)(2). Presumably, the ease o f recreating im portant advisory
    committees whose duration is not provided for by law other than by the
    FACA will obviate the problems created in such cases if the committees
    serve truly im portant functions.
    II. Post-FACA Committees
    Applying our interpretation o f § 14(a) to both o f the VA committees
    established subsequent to the enactment o f the FACA, we conclude, as
    discussed below, that the statute establishing each committee sets forth
    specific functions, continuing in nature, that are integral parts o f the
    implementation o f a statutory scheme, and thus provides for each com m it­
    tee’s continuing duration.
    A. Structural Safety Committee
    Under 38 U .S.C . § 5001, the Adm inistrator, subject to Presidential ap ­
    proval, is authorized to establish hospitals, domiciliaries, and outpatient
    dispensary facilities that shall .be constructed under standards to be pre­
    scribed by the Administrator. Section 5001(b) directs the Adm inistrator to
    appoint an Advisory Committee on Structural Safety o f Veterans Admini­
    stration Facilities, “ which shall approve regulations” prescribed under
    § 5001. This assigned function is, on its face, specific, ongoing, and inte­
    gral to the implementation of the statutory program for acquiring and
    operating medical and domiciliary facilities.
    B. Cemeteries Committee
    Section 1001 o f title 38 directs the appointm ent o f an Advisory Com ­
    mittee on Cemeteries and Memorials. It provides that the Administrator
    “ shall advise and consult” with the committee concerning various func­
    tions, including the selection of burial sites and the erection o f appropriate
    memorials. Consultation with respect to these particular activities is a
    specific function, ongoing in nature, that is integral to those activities. The
    committee is further required by statute “ to make periodic reports and
    recommendations to the Adm inistrator and to Congress.” We have
    uniformly interpreted the statutory requirement o f periodic reports to
    Congress as a specific continuing function that Congress deems
    173
    integral to those statutory schemes o f which such reports are a part.
    We thus conclude that the duration o f both the Structural Safety and
    Cemeteries Committees is “ otherwise provided for by law” within the
    meaning o f § 14(a) o f the FACA, and thus both committees survive the
    2-year autom atic cutoff provision o f § 14(a)(2)(B).
    III. Pre-FACA Committees
    Applying our interpretation o f § 14(a) to both o f the VA committees
    established prior to the enactm ent o f the FACA, we conclude, as discussed
    below, that the statute establishing each committee fails to set forth func­
    tions implying each com m ittee’s indefinite duration. Congress, however,
    has passed subsequent legislation, giving at least some extended duration
    to each committee for particular purposes.
    A. Education Committee
    Section 1792 o f title 38 directs the Adm inistrator to form an advisory
    committee composed o f experts from various fields and veterans to advise
    the VA with respect to its vocational rehabilitation and educational assist­
    ance programs. Its functions are described as follows:
    The Adm inistrator shall advise and consult with the committee
    from time to time with respect to the administration o f this
    chapter and chapters 31, 34, and 35 o f this title, and the commit­
    tee may make such reports and recommendations as it deems
    desirable to the Adm inistrator and to the Congress.
    This provision is substantially the same in wording as § 262 o f the Veterans
    Readjustment Assistance Act o f 1952, 
    66 Stat. 679
    , under which the com­
    mittee was originally created.
    O n its face, § 1792 designates no particular decisionmaking process in
    which the committee will play a specified role. There is no requirement
    that the committee act in any particular instance. It is permitted but not re­
    quired to report to the Adm inistrator and to Congress, and no indication
    appears that the committee is to provide its advice on a regular basis. C on­
    sequently, the duration o f the Education Committee is not provided for by
    implication by its statute.
    Congress did, however, in § 304(b)(1) o f the G .I. Bill Improvement Act
    o f 1977 (the 1977 Act), Pub. L. No. 95-202, 
    91 Stat. 1442
     (to be codified
    at 38 U .S.C . note following § 1792) provide:
    The Adm inistrator o f Veterans’ Affairs, in consultation with the
    Advisory Committee formed pursuant to section 1792 o f title 38,
    United States Code, shall provide for the conduct o f an inde­
    pendent study o f the operation o f the programs o f educational
    assistance carried out under chapters 34 and 36 o f title 38, United
    States Code * * *. A report o f such study shall be submitted to
    the President and the Congress not later than September 30,
    1979.
    174
    This wording is problematic because it might be read to imply the under­
    standing o f Congress that the “ Advisory Committee formed pursuant to
    section 1792” still existed on November 23, 1977, the date the section was
    enacted. That implication might contradict our conclusion that § 14(a)
    operated to terminate the Education Committee 2 years after the enact­
    ment o f the FACA on October 6, 1972.
    Such an interpretation would, in our view, be incorrect. First, it is
    elementary that statutes concerning the same subject are to be read in a
    consistent manner, if possible. That 1977 Act may reasonably be read as
    re-forming the Education Committee until September 30, 1979, for the
    limited purpose o f advising the Adm inistrator concerning an independent
    study o f VA educational assistance programs. This would effect the pur­
    pose of the 1977 Act without contradicting the FACA. Second, the FACA
    itself proscribes any implied repeal o f its termination provisions:
    The provisions o f this Act * * * shall apply to each advisory
    committee except to the extent that any Act o f Congress estab­
    lishing such advisory committee specifically provides otherwise.
    [5 U.S.C. App. § 4(a).]
    Nothing in the statutes relevant to the Education Committee specifically
    provides that the same test o f implied duration that applies to other com­
    mittees should not be applied to it.
    Interpreting the 1977 Act is necessarily difficult because Congress seems
    itself to have overlooked the FACA problem. The provision regarding the
    Education Com mittee’s role in the VA study was apparently added in con­
    ference, from which no report issued. The original House bill made no
    reference to the Education Committee. H .R. Rept. 586, 95th Cong., 1st
    Sess. (1977). The original Senate bill would have amended § 1792 to pro­
    vide that the Adm inistrator would meet with the advisory committee “ on
    a regular basis,” and at least semiannually. S. Rept. 468, 95th Cong., 1st
    Sess. 10 (1977).
    In its discussion o f the Education Committee, the Senate Committee on
    Veterans’ Affairs, at 118-119, manifests its unawareness o f the FACA
    problem .3 However, its discussion does buttress the conclusion that C on­
    gress, in establishing the committee in 1952, had not provided for it a
    specific continuing role that is integral to VA administration:
    Unfortunately, the advisory committee—established by Congress
    specifically to assist the Veterans’ Administration in establishing
    channels o f com m unication with these [representatives from
    education associations] and other concerned individuals—has met
    sporadically. Apparently, little emphasis has been placed by the
    ’ The Senate committee noted disapprovingly that the Education Com mittee had not met
    since October 17, 1975. S. Rept. 468, 95th C ong., 1st Sess. 119 (1977). O ur conclusion,
    however, is that the comm ittee should have been deemed term inated as a statutory committee
    on O ctober 6, 1974.
    175
    Veteran’s Adm inistration upon the helpful role that the commit­
    tee could play in the mutual exchange o f inform ation and ideas.
    *                   *                    *
    The Committee also notes, as it did last year, that in the 10 years
    that the section 1792 committee has existed, it has yet to make
    any reports or recommendations to the Congress under the dis­
    cretionary authority granted under section 1792; it has reported
    only in response to a specific m andate o f law to do so. [Ibid.]
    Although Congress, in 1977, gave a new function to the Education Com ­
    mittee, the 1977 Act does not alter our conclusion that, as created in 1952,
    the Education Committee was assigned no specific ongoing function in­
    tegral to VA administration that implied its continuing duration. Conse­
    quently, the presumption o f the com m ittee’s autom atic termination after 2
    years under § 14(a) o f the FACA stands unrebutted. The effect of the 1977
    Act was merely to reconstitute the committee for the limited purpose of
    consulting with the Adm inistrator regarding the study authorized by the
    Act. The committee will terminate, under the 1977 Act, on September 30,
    1979, unless reauthorized by Congress or rechartered by the Administrator
    under § 9(a)(2) o f the FACA.
    B. SMAG
    Section 4112 o f title 38 directs the Adm inistrator to establish a special
    medical advisory group (SMAG) composed o f various professionals
    nominated by the Chief Medical Director—
    whose duties shall be to advise the Adm inistrator, through the
    Chief Medical Director, and the Chief Medical Director direct
    [sic], relative to the care and treatment o f disabled veterans, and
    other matters pertinent to the Departm ent o f Medicine and
    Surgery.
    This provision is worded substantially the same as § 12 o f the Act o f Janu­
    ary 3, 1946, 
    59 Stat. 678
    , under which SMAQ was originally formed.
    Like the Education Committee statute, § 4112 designates no particular
    decisionmaking process in which the committee will play a specified role.
    There is no requirement under this law that SMAG act in any particular in­
    stance. SMAG meets at the pleasure o f the Adm inistrator4 and is required
    to give no particular reports. Consequently, the duration o f SMAG is not
    impliedly provided for by its establishing statute, notwithstanding
    SM AG’s genuine usefulness to the VA.
    * As originally m andated, SM AG was to conduct “ regular calendar quarterly meetings.”
    Act o f January 3, 1946, § 12, 
    59 Stat. 678
    . Congress, in 1966, amended this wording,
    providing:
    The special medical advisory group shall meet on a regular basis as prescribed by the A d­
    m inistrator. [Veterans Hospitalization and Medical Services M odernization Am end­
    ments o f 1966, Title I, § 109(a), 
    80 Stat. 1370
    .]
    176
    Congress did, however, give SMAG additional functions. In 1966, it
    enacted 
    38 U.S.C. § 5055
    , establishing a SMAG Advisory Subcommittee
    on Programs for Exchange o f Medical Inform ation to advise the Adm in­
    istrator regarding the statutory scheme o f grants to medical institutions ex­
    changing medical inform ation with the VA. § 5055(a). The Adm inistrator
    is authorized to make grants under § 5055(b) “ upon the recommendation
    o f the Subcom m ittee.” Further, under § 5055(d):
    The Adm inistrator, after consultation with the Subcommittee
    shall prescribe regulations covering the terms and conditions for
    making grants, under this section.
    These specific ongoing functions, integral to the statutory grant-making
    process, do imply the continuing duration o f the SMAG subcommittee for
    as long as the statutory program remains authorized. They do not,
    however, amend § 4112, and do not, by themselves, extend the duration of
    SMAG for its other functions longer than 2 years after the enactm ent o f
    the FACA.
    In 1972, however, Congress enacted 38 U .S.C . § 5070, establishing a
    system o f grants to new State medical schools, VA-affiliated medical
    schools, and health manpower training institutions. Under § 5070(c), the
    Administrator is empowered to promulgate regulations covering agree­
    ments and grants under title 38, chapter 82 “ after consultation” with
    SMAG. The specific, ongoing, and integral nature o f this function implies
    the continued duration o f SMAG to perform this function as long as
    agreements and grants are made under this statute. No indication appears,
    however, that § 5070(c) is to be deemed an amendment o f § 4112 or to ex­
    tend the life o f SMAG for any purpose other than consulting with regard
    to grants and agreements under chapter 82.
    No other provision or amendment to § 4112 implies the continuing
    duration o f SMAG beyond O ctober 6, 1974, for any purpose other than
    those named in §§ 5055 or 5070.5 SMAG and its authorized subcommittee
    thus are no longer authorized to perform general functions under § 4112,
    and SMAG will terminate in its entirety upon the termination o f the VA’s
    programs under § 5055 and chapter 82, unless reauthorized by Congress or
    rechartered by the A dm inistrator under § 9(a)(2) o f the FACA.
    IV. Conclusion
    In sum, as we interpret § 14(a) o f the FACA, it creates a rebuttable
    presumption that, unless a statute creating an advisory committee deals
    ’ In 1972, Congress enacted 38 U .S.C . § 4124, under which the Chief Medical director,
    after consultation with SM AG, is to carry out the provisions o f subchapter II o f chapter 73
    o f title 38, regarding supervision, staffing, and personnel training for regional medical
    education centers. Congress did not, however, designate for SM AG a specific, ongoing, in­
    tegral role in the implementation o f this subchapter. In 1976, Congress am ended 38 U .S.C .
    § 4112 to add new members to SM AG: its 1976 am endm ent, however, did not affect the
    functions or duration o f the comm ittee. Veterans Om nibus Health Care Act o f 1976
    §§ 110(8), 209(b)(3), Pub. L. 94-581, 
    90 Stat. 2849
    , 2861.
    177
    expressly with its term ination, the committee terminates 2 years after the
    enactm ent o f the FACA or after the creation o f the committee, whichever
    comes later. This presum ption may be rebutted by a showing that C on­
    gress, in creating a committee, assigned to it a specific ongoing function
    that is integral to a particular statutory scheme. Such a showing can be
    made w ith’respect to the Cemeteries and Structural Safety Committees.
    Congress has implied the continuing duration o f SMAG only to perform
    functions under 38 U .S.C . §§ 5055 and 5070 for the life o f the relevant VA
    programs. It has provided for the reform ation o f the Education Committee
    to consult with respect to a particular study to be completed on September
    30, 1979.
    Leon U lm an
    D eputy Assistant A ttorney General
    Office o f Legal Counsel
    178
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 4/13/1979

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/29/2017